Any Clear Identity?

[Xel]

A lot of the time it seems like I have no clear identity at all. Its not that I lack self knowledge, it just seems like I have analyzed myself to bits. Am I an this type of person or that? I don't know, all I know is what I was thinking and what I was feeling at the time. I know what issues are important to me, yet my actions would not make anyone (including myself) think they are. So I become a shadowy figure of nothing to myself. Disjointed thoughts, feelings, and tendencies that have been shoved into a body that I have taken out one by one to look at before putting them back in.

Anybody else feel like this sometimes?

 

[Beat Mango]

I see self/identity as an embodiment of one's perspective. I try to see all perspectives, and in doing so lose my own yes.

 

[Android]

It seems to be a nearly fundamental part of the human condition from my point of view. I doubt there are many people out there who see themselves as others do.. of course the degree to which this is true/false varies.

There are some people who I know see me more clearly than others, but the majority of people, including my family, have no idea what's going on inside my head, what my goals in life are, etc. For the most part, I intentionally present myself to others in a way that doesn't match up with the "me" that I know. I think the main reason for this is that I have a fear of being treated like Meursault in "The Stranger" if I were to be honest with people about what I feel and think.

 

[Chimera]

All I know is that my identity is in a constant state of change. When all other musings about identity go sour, that's the thought I go to for some sense of stability.​

 

[Ghost1986]

the only Identity i actively proclaim is that i am human. some times i will state i am American but above all else i am human.

my identity of being simply human comes from my own observations and many negative experiences.

i personally think having these labels like American, Asian or Muslim are valuable but i find them problematic when its taken or given as the core identity of the individual.

 

[Minuend]

I have a hard time recognizing my own unchangeable self. If we say that identity = a state of being the same throughout time, having a core-self that's you.

I see personalities as very flexible. I have some qualities (obviously), but I believe most of them are what I choose to be. I could choose to be supporting or rejecting. I always think that if I have a flaw in my personality, I will be able to fix it if I try. This might be a bit naive sometimes. And it's a very self- critical attitude. Anyhow, that's why I have a hard time determine what my characteristics are. Maybe I'm nice now, but that's just because I choose to be, not because there's something in my personality that forces me. I realize that we have some limits to a certain degree. Guilt would make it harder to be bad, for instance. But, different circumstances may change that. Then we might say that the person has become someone else. But I would say that you are still the same person, with the same brain and body.

I'm terribly subjective when seeing myself. I'm not good at analyzing myself. I've changed greatly throughout the years. I try to be the one I want to be. When I socialize, I try to be someone accepted. This lack of identity makes it harder for me to trust myself. If you have some qualities you know you are good at, which you like, you will have more confidence. Problem is, I always doubt my qualities. Probably because I think I have to be perfect to be able to say that I'm good at something. There's also the possibility that I might be wrong, which may quickly turn into an identity crisis. I already had a few of those. I relied on one good ability.

 

[Jennywocky]

A lot of the time it seems like I have no clear identity at all. Its not that I lack self knowledge, it just seems like I have analyzed myself to bits. Am I an this type of person or that? I don't know, all I know is what I was thinking and what I was feeling at the time. I know what issues are important to me, yet my actions would not make anyone (including myself) think they are. So I become a shadowy figure of nothing to myself. Disjointed thoughts, feelings, and tendencies that have been shove into a body that I have taken out one by one to look at before putting them back in. Anybody else feel like this sometimes?

I see self/identity as an embodiment of one's perspective. I try to see all perspectives, and in doing so lose my own yes.

Both of those.

To regain self, I had to actually choose at times to see my own perspective and block out the rest, otherwise I'd lose my self in chaos. I had to stop stepping outside myself to analyze things and instead remain within me and within my own body and head.

Living is an engagement and investment, and what INTPs naturally do is disengage to get a better more thorough view. If you never reengage, there is little sense of self, with internal desires, hopes, dreams, longings, everything becomes a rational analysis.

It's like climbing a tree to get the lay of the land. it's not a bad thing, but the INTP likes to stay in the tree and keep looking around, whereas to live and engage life you have to get out of the tree first.

 

[amorfati]

Ever since I've been alive I have been incapable of identifying with any cliques of any kind. I see all perspectives and so I myself have no real perspective. Sometimes like someone else said I say that I'm "human", but even that is saying to much/to little because being human is only one aspect of my being. Philosophicaly I'm nihilistic, but that doesn't mean that I am a "nihilist".

I seem to be (or appear) as others see in me. I feel like Chauncy Gardener in "Being There". If they see something within themselves (creativity, passion, etc) they tell me that I'm "creative" or "passionate" but that just reflects what's happening in themselves at the moment. If someone is anxious they might ask me "why are you so anxious" but it's that person who is anxious, not me.

I am a bundle of perceptions, and again, that's even saying to little/to much. I feel and I percieve. That's really all I am certain of.

 

[Da Blob]

It is generally conceded that everyone has at least two identities, personal identity (I, me) and social identity (We, Us, 'Them").
William James once said something like One's personal identity can be defined by all that One claims as "Mine".
Social identity is a much more complex thing. In fact "personality types", persona, social roles, stereotypes etc. are just a few of the aspects of social identity. The problem with social identity is that it is assigned to one by others to a great extent, so it is a difficult thing to modify...

It is an interesting question- much akin the the "If a tree falls in the wood and no one is there to hear it fall, does it make a sound?"
If a person is alone, do they still have a personality or social identity?

 

[Trebuchet]

Ever since I've been alive I have been incapable of identifying with any cliques of any kind. I see all perspectives and so I myself have no real perspective.

Cliques don't work for me either, I suspect because the members seem to define themselves by their exclusion of people who aren't in the group. That is not only unfriendly, it is a stupid way to define your identity.

I felt like the other posters here, like amorfati said with too many perspectives, or too changeable. However, at some point, I was sort of done perceiving, and joined in. Despite the detached feeling of my youth, now at 41 I feel like I know pretty much who I am. On the other hand, my INTP dad at 75 seems to be still exploring that, so obviously my experience isn't universal.

 

[Jennywocky]

It is generally conceded that everyone has at least two identities, personal identity (I, me) and social identity (We, Us, 'Them").

True, and I would extrapolate from your assertion here to state that we have many roles or faces, each changing depending on which group we are immersed at the time...

 

[gepcy loc]

I feel that increasingly with my parents. I pretended to be something I’m not or put off experiencing things or having relationships just to avoid arguing with them. Not that I care, once I’m out the house ill do what I want but its the fear of conflict, I believe, that causes those feelings you described in me, that and the blocking of my full personality.

 

[Ermine]

Clear identity? It really depends on who you ask and what you call clear. In comparison to most people, I have a pretty clear identity. I have a pretty good estimation of what I want, what I want to do, and what I'm good at. I also have a pretty set identity in relation to other people.

But when it comes to me and myself, I'm always questioning my identity. This is probably because I keep identifying my personality on what I do. As a result, my personal identity changes every time I experience something new. A big example is how I've incorporated recent new social experiences. Now I have to reassess how I relate to people and what it actually means for me to be introverted. The only constants are what keeps coming up over and over again.

However, my personal identity and my social identity are becoming more and more similar. I've made a point to always be myself with people, even if I just use different facets of myself. So far, I've been successful with that goal, and everything works out better, even if some people don't like me for it.

 

[Cavallier]

I am a bundle of perceptions, and again, that's even saying to little/to much. I feel and I percieve. That's really all I am certain of.

Agreed.

I think that for the introspective and analytical INTP having a pigeon holed identity is difficult. Given certain circumstances I identify with this philosophy or that group of people. Given other circumstances I feel differently.*

It's all to fluid. I think that "identity" is for Js and their special need for order and social demarcations.

*I sometimes wonder if perhaps the key to life is simply being able to agree with or identify with completely separate things simultaneously.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Everyone seems to draw this duality between their projected selves, the "Mask", and their inner selves, the "True Self". But this mentality leads us to attempt removing the mask and to deconstruct our self in search of a defined true self; however I've come to believe this is a pointless endeavour (even potentially self harming) as the removal of the mask leaves us raw and ugly, like a face with it's skin removed, and the deconstruction is a vain attempt to quantify something that is by its nature, transitory/dynamic

^ I underlined the metaphor above because I want to stress the idea that perhaps the mask isn't supposed to be removed, and that one's identity isn't something that can be found within, it's not some innate thing set by fate, it's something that must be created by the individual for themself, by themself.

There is no inherent identity.
"Be yourself" is pseudo-wisdom bullshit, you are whoever you want to be.

If you want to be a good person, then is it not already so?
If you want to be an asshole, well what kind of person wants that?

Better advice would be: Be true to who you choose/chosen to be.

 

[KazeCraven]

If someone asks if I'm funny, serious, committed, laid-back, driven, expressive, emotional, picky, selfish, aloof, assertive, or reserved, I say "sometimes."

States, moods, tendencies, and traits are all relative. Some people just hold onto them longer than others. My goals in life do not include building a certain "self" because doing so seems rather arbitrary. Rather, I correct for recurring tendencies and seek ways to meet my core needs so that I can get done what I want/need to do. Usually.

That being said, if you try to be someone and fail, it's likely because you didn't really want to be that way or are going against the core of what is you. The only "self" I am concerned with include things I consistently do and cannot change. And most of those things are contained within the INTP profile (though it covers much extra stuff that I ignore).

 

[eudemonia]

Both of those.

To regain self, I had to actually choose at times to see my own perspective and block out the rest, otherwise I'd lose my self in chaos. I had to stop stepping outside myself to analyze things and instead remain within me and within my own body and head.

Living is an engagement and investment, and what INTPs naturally do is disengage to get a better more thorough view. If you never reengage, there is little sense of self, with internal desires, hopes, dreams, longings, everything becomes a rational analysis.

It's like climbing a tree to get the lay of the land. it's not a bad thing, but the INTP likes to stay in the tree and keep looking around, whereas to live and engage life you have to get out of the tree first.

I like this Jennywocky, its a great metaphor. I think I have been living in the tree for some time, as I have been raising my kids. I have just got out of the tree and I look up longingly at the tree again. It's tough actually having to do stuff and meet other people's expectations. But the process has made me re-evaluate not 'who I am' but rather what I want and what I am good at. But also I am having to find a voice. This is much more difficult than I thought. Everything seems so predictable; nothing surprises. I greet everything with a shrug of the shoulder - and??? But this is not good enough in my new role. I am having to find a voice, find passion again. That tree looks jolly comfortable from where I'm standing However, funnily enough, I have always had a strong sense of core and never felt the need to change it or adapt my identity. I think there are costs to that though.

 

[amorfati]

Everyone seems to draw this duality between their projected selves, the "Mask", and their inner selves, the "True Self". But this mentality leads us to attempt removing the mask and to deconstruct our self in search of a defined true self; however I've come to believe this is a pointless endeavour (even potentially self harming) as the removal of the mask leaves us raw and ugly, like a face with it's skin removed

I agree with this entirely. The masks (or as I sometimes say, costumes) we wear are no less important or real than our "true colors". It might even be the aim of a powerful (and often times evil) spirit to primarily become a mask manufacturer and mask wearer, taking on different forms from the nothingness of their being in order to survive in the most remote regions of the spirit so that they can control and influence the most expansive territories of Man. This was at least the case with men like Nietzsche, Charles Manson, and Hitler, as far as I can infer.

 

[sagewolf]

Everyone seems to draw this duality between their projected selves, the "Mask", and their inner selves, the "True Self". But this mentality leads us to attempt removing the mask and to deconstruct our self in search of a defined true self; however I've come to believe this is a pointless endeavour (even potentially self harming) as the removal of the mask leaves us raw and ugly, like a face with it's skin removed, and the deconstruction is a vain attempt to quantify something that is by its nature, transitory/dynamic

^ I underlined the metaphor above because I want to stress the idea that perhaps the mask isn't supposed to be removed, and that one's identity isn't something that can be found within, it's not some innate thing set by fate, it's something that must be created by the individual for themself, by themself.

There is no inherent identity.
"Be yourself" is pseudo-wisdom bullshit, you are whoever you want to be.

If you want to be a good person, then is it not already so?
If you want to be an asshole, well what kind of person wants that?

Better advice would be: Be true to who you choose/chosen to be.

*claps* Cog said it a million times better than I could have. ...And he kinda got here first, too.

I don't think there is any one defined person I am: there are many things I can be described as now, and many, many more I might become in the future. Some I will adopt as 'me', part of my identity; others will fall by the wayside, discarded for lack of interest/committment or never considered as possibilities. As I live, I am creating my identity.

 

[Jesin]

(I'm just pointing out that this other thread is on quite a similar topic.)

 

[Auburn]

Beautiful post Cog..

I agree with the "be yourself" concept being bs. The way I see it: It is impossible not to be true to yourself - as anything you do (even including the desire to change and improve) is already part of "who you are" and therefore you're being true to yourself even by wanting to improve/alter yourself and in succeeding or failing to do so.


The identity of liquid, and it's very nature, is to be ever changing and never constant. The only constant thing about liquid is that it is always able to change shape. I believe many humans have similar "identities" to this; myself included.

What is a boggart?

 

[eudemonia]

I can't go along with this. I do think there is a core 'self'. Otherwise you are subject to so many situationist forces. There are many out there who do not believe in character at all - you are simply a reflection of the situation in which you find yourself. I truly believe I am not. For goodness sake, if INTP's cannot be individual's, who can? Surely we are not just shaped by our context - we of all people?

 

[Cavallier]

I can't go along with this. I do think there is a core 'self'. Otherwise you are subject to so many situationist forces. There are many out there who do not believe in character at all - you are simply a reflection of the situation in which you find yourself. I truly believe I am not. For goodness sake, if INTP's cannot be individual's, who can? Surely we are not just shaped by our context - we of all people?

Thanks eudemonia. I've been chewing on this for a while and you've given me a point to work forward from.

Everyone seems to draw this duality between their projected selves, the "Mask", and their inner selves, the "True Self". But this mentality leads us to attempt removing the mask and to deconstruct our self in search of a defined true self; however I've come to believe this is a pointless endeavour (even potentially self harming) as the removal of the mask leaves us raw and ugly, like a face with it's skin removed, and the deconstruction is a vain attempt to quantify something that is by its nature, transitory/dynamic

^ I underlined the metaphor above because I want to stress the idea that perhaps the mask isn't supposed to be removed, and that one's identity isn't something that can be found within, it's not some innate thing set by fate, it's something that must be created by the individual for themself, by themself.

There is no inherent identity.
"Be yourself" is pseudo-wisdom bullshit, you are whoever you want to be.

If you want to be a good person, then is it not already so?
If you want to be an asshole, well what kind of person wants that?

Better advice would be: Be true to who you choose/chosen to be.

I agree that "who we pretend to be" and "who we really are" are one and the same. Perhaps we pretend to be a certain person when in public but ultimately it is a part of who we are. The fact that I feel the need to pretend is a part of my "inner identity" and thus a part of "who I really am". Also, in order to reach harmony/contentment/happiness (or whatever you may call it) a person's identity "must be created by the individual for themself, by themself".

While I agree that "be yourself" is indeed bullshit I still think there must be a kernel of self that is present at our creation to build upon. Otherwise aren't we simply what our parents or other people have made us to be? How can I "choose to be" if I am merely a creation of the situation? If we take Cog's point to it's ultimate conclusion we've run smack up against the old "I'm born homosexual/I choose to be homosexual" argument. (I've chosen this example for simplicity's sake. Not because I want to derail this thread with a "source of homosexuality" discussion!)

(right about here I wander off the path and get thoroughly entangled in the vines of speculation):

At some point we must bring "consciousness" into this discussion. We can not choose to choose to be who we are if we do not have consciousness. Otherwise I'd be a doll painted with the colors of the situation I happen to have been placed in mechanically dancing along to the pull of my peers, parents, and training. I postulate that the kernel of "who I am" is consciousness itself. I wonder, if each consciousness were not different from one person to another wouldn't we all simply perceive the world the same and therefore choose the same identity?

Edit: Boggart: In British folklore, it is household spirit which causes things to disappear, milk to sour, and dogs to go lame. In my household, if you say "don't boggart the milk" you mean "don't take all the milk".

 

[Artifice Orisit]

While I agree that "be yourself" is indeed bullshit I still think there must be a kernel of self that is present at our creation to build upon. Otherwise aren't we simply what our parents or other people have made us to be? How can I "choose to be" if I am merely a creation of the situation?

Well don't you have an opinion of who you want to be?
Our circumstances certainly affect us but I think you've leaped ahead here by assuming that our situations affect us directly, you've forgotten that a sentient mind is influencing this process, i.e. parents have such great difficult manipulating their children into being what they want them to be, because the children aren’t just mounds of clay waiting to be moulded, they have their own opinions, their own desires, their own ideas about who they want to be.

If we take Cog's point to it's ultimate conclusion we've run smack up against the old "I'm born homosexual/I choose to be homosexual" argument.

Which runs into biology/psychology grounds.

 

[Beat Mango]

At some point we must bring "consciousness" into this discussion. We can not choose to choose to be who we are if we do not have consciousness. Otherwise I'd be a doll painted with the colors of the situation I happen to have been placed in mechanically dancing along to the pull of my peers, parents, and training. I postulate that the kernel of "who I am" is consciousness itself. I wonder, if each consciousness were not different from one person to another wouldn't we all simply perceive the world the same and therefore choose the same identity?

This, as well as what Cog posted, overlaps into the thread cryptonia started about whether we can change our heart (ie, will/desire) or not. If we can't, which seems extraordinarily likely, then the relative importance of consciousness and choice become so insignificant as to barely be worth discussion. In my opinion, anyway.

 

[Irishpenguin]

Okay, I'm going to put my thoughts as best I can into words.

I have read and thought much about everything correlating to the notion that the phrase "Be yourself" is total BS.

While I have to agree after reading that your projected self (or "mask" as it has been said) is definitely somewhat reflective of your True self. I mean, it's not like you can completely change who you are just because people happen to be around you, but what you can do is slightly modify your character just for a little bit until the people have left. After this then you can go back to being your inner self or "true self" (I think this is what the general population's outlook on this topic is anyway........grrrrr....crap, I dunno)

Now for what I was trying to get at in the first place. Okay, I can't imagine that all these thoughts that have been mentioned in this thread go through a persons mind when they simply say "Be yourself". So I asked myself, "What are they really trying to say?". I came to the conclusion that when they say "Just be yourself" they are just trying to say don't be that guy that I see you turn into when people show up (mask), just be that guy that I always chill out with when no one else is around (inner self, True self). So in this sense, they are not actively thinking that your projected self is completely different from who you actually are, but rather, they think that your inner self is easier too get along with when compared to your masked self.......

I hope I wasn't just saying what was bluntly obvious, and if I wasn't, then I hope someone understands what I was trying to say.

 

[Cavallier]

Our circumstances certainly affect us but I think you've leaped ahead here by assuming that our situations affect us directly,

Which runs into biology/psychology grounds.

Hmmm...I think our situations do affect us directly. However, there is also the cumulative effect of all the situations we have been in previously. Obviously we learn or change our behavior based on previous experience.

Also, I don't think we can have this discussion without bringing up biology and psychology.

a sentient mind is influencing this process, i.e. parents have such great difficult manipulating their children into being what they want them to be, because the children aren’t just mounds of clay waiting to be moulded

Doesn't that statement back up the idea that we do have a kernel of personality built into who we are? I suppose you could argue no by saying that just because we have desires and ideas about who we want to be doesn't mean we were born with those ideas and desires. (not that I'm putting words or arguments in your mouth...I'm more thinking this out loud) How does that not back up my point: If we are not born with an innate self then aren't we just products of the situations we've been put in?